Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada - a wholly owned province of China


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure people noticed the Liberals announcement the other day that Canada 'is trying to convince' China to double or triple the number of visa application centres for Chinese "workers, students and

The idea that Trudeau alone is negotiating this, and that his lack of intelligence in that regard will immerse us in an inextricable deal that will ruin Canada is so simplistic as to be deceptive.  

Canada - a wholly owned  province of China  state of US 

On 11/11/2018 at 2:12 PM, Argus said:

Huawei is controlled by China's government and under Chinese law must cooperate with Chinese espionage efforts.

Meh... In the meantime our government's are busily pressuring our telecoms to behave no differently but against ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The crude bullying by China over the Huawei arrest reminds us that however ancient China's civilization is it's government, and often enough its people, are narrow-minded, parochial, and do not behave in any way remotely akin to what western nations term 'civilized'. Threatening Canada over a routine criminal matter, and demanding we release a woman before the courts seems to reinforce what Stockwell Day said about how senior Chinese officials simply cannot comprehend what the rule of law means, or that the government cannot simply call up a judge and order him to do as they want.

And I have to say the Chinese "Canadians" who have come out in support of China and Huawei in this matter make me extremely suspicious. They're clearly demonstrating that they're not Canadians, regardless of what paperwork they possess. They're Chinese citizens in Canada. We see the same from those groups of Chinese "Canadian" businessmen who have been trooping up to the Liberal party to donate tens of thousands of dollars while telling every minister who will listen that Canada has to do as China wants. I think we should start reconsidering how many Chinese citizens we allow into our immigration stream, given that a number of them are clearly still going to retain loyalty to their Communist masters. Especially in light of the efforts China's intelligence operatives have been making in recruiting these people.

A group of Richmond residents, including lawyer and former mayoral candidate Hong Guo, have voiced their support for Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng, and are asking for the Canadian government to “release her immediately.”

A press conference called “Demanding fairness protecting human rights” was held last Saturday in Richmond by a Richmond-based group called the Chinese Women and Children’s Association of Canada, which was launched in 2015. President Dongmei Han said at the conference that the arrest “violates a citizen’s rights" becasue "Meng is a Chinese citizen under Chinese jurisdiction, and U.S. law should not override the laws of other countries.” Han called the arrest “too dirty” and "inhumane" during an interview with the Richmond News on Monday.

https://www.richmond-news.com/news/richmond-group-defending-huawei-cfo-calls-arrest-too-dirty-1.23527661

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Argus said:

The crude bullying by China over the Huawei arrest reminds us that however ancient China's civilization is it's government, and often enough its people, are narrow-minded, parochial, and do not behave in any way remotely akin to what western nations term 'civilized'. Threatening Canada over a routine criminal matter, and demanding we release a woman before the courts seems to reinforce what Stockwell Day said about how senior Chinese officials simply cannot comprehend what the rule of law means, or that the government cannot simply call up a judge and order him to do as they want.

I dunno, is it really that simple? Huawei acted in violation of US sanctions against Iran, but weren't those the same sanctions that were lifted in the Iran nuclear deal, which was originally agreed upon by the US, China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, the EU and Iran? Trump withdrew from the deal unilaterally in May and now the US requested that a Huawei executive be extradited for violation of the sanctions. But the rest of the world is still on board with the deal. So should Canada be bowing to US pressure based on its unilateral withdrawal from the deal? What authority does the US have to mandate that a Chinese company not have dealings with Iran, if China is not on board with the sanctions, and the UN security council is not on board with the sanctions?

Maybe I missed something but it doesn't seem to me that there is a clearcut legal situation here, rather, it seems like its an issue of the US and China each wanting Canada to do something. Personally I think it would have been better had Canada not gotten involved at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I dunno, is it really that simple? Huawei acted in violation of US sanctions against Iran, but weren't those the same sanctions that were lifted in the Iran nuclear deal, which was originally agreed upon by the US, China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, the EU and Iran?

No. Just some of them. And what they actually did was to set up a third party corporation and funnel equipment through that while lying to the US government on the forms they filled out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Argus said:

No. Just some of them. And what they actually did was to set up a third party corporation and funnel equipment through that while lying to the US government on the forms they filled out.

So was what Meng did in violation of the sanctions that remain in force and/or in violation of Canadian law? Is there an article that clearly outlines the legal situation? I'm not fully up to speed on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bonam said:

So was what Meng did in violation of the sanctions that remain in force and/or in violation of Canadian law? Is there an article that clearly outlines the legal situation? I'm not fully up to speed on it. 

Whether her company violated Canadian law is not important. We have an extradition treaty with the US and are obligated to detain and extradite people when they make the request. The actual accusation, I believe, is fraud against US banks which the subsidiary she was partially in charge of were dealing with - by lying to them about a number of issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

Whether her company violated Canadian law is not important. We have an extradition treaty with the US and are obligated to detain and extradite people when they make the request. The actual accusation, I believe, is fraud against US banks which the subsidiary she was partially in charge of were dealing with - by lying to them about a number of issues.

Hmm, I see. I guess I still have the impression from vaguely paying attention to things over the last few weeks that the extradition request itself is politically motivated given the US-China trade situation. I'm not sure it's just a routine legal case. Would the US have made the request if it wasn't for the current "trade war"? I'm really don't like the idea of justice systems being used for political purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bonam said:

Hmm, I see. I guess I still have the impression from vaguely paying attention to things over the last few weeks that the extradition request itself is politically motivated given the US-China trade situation. I'm not sure it's just a routine legal case. Would the US have made the request if it wasn't for the current "trade war"? I'm really don't like the idea of justice systems being used for political purposes. 

That I can't say. Apparently the warrant was filed in August, and it just happened that the first opportunity to get her was when she was changing flights at Vancouver for a flight to Mexico - clearly avoiding stopping at the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a question: If a Canadian foreign trade policy runs counter to an American one, and violating that US policy led to a charge against a Canadian who was not violating Canadian trade policy, would we extradite?  Of course not.  Meng is Chinese, so it's messy.  We should be circumspect about playing into a highly politicized US trade policy that will no doubt get tossed if the Dems win in 2020.  Trump is using Canada as leverage in his trade war.  Again, this is ultimately for the court to decide based on Canadian law and treaties, whatever any of us may want or feel to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So here's a question: If a Canadian foreign trade policy runs counter to an American one, and violating that US policy led to a charge against a Canadian who was not violating Canadian trade policy, would we extradite?  Of course not.  Meng is Chinese, so it's messy.  We should be circumspect about playing into a highly politicized US trade policy that will no doubt get tossed if the Dems win in 2020.  Trump is using Canada as leverage in his trade war.  Again, this is ultimately for the court to decide based on Canadian law and treaties, whatever any of us may want or feel to be the case.

 

Don't be so sure about that....many of the sanctions against Iran originated with the Obama administration (and Democrats).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Iran_Sanctions,_Accountability,_and_Divestment_Act_of_2010

Huawei/Skycom allegedly committed fraud to evade not only U.S. sanctions, but EU sanctions against Iran as well for the period 2009 - 2014, years before any relief was granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Don't be so sure about that....many of the sanctions against Iran originated with the Obama administration (and Democrats).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Iran_Sanctions,_Accountability,_and_Divestment_Act_of_2010

Huawei/Skycom allegedly committed fraud to evade not only U.S. sanctions, but EU sanctions against Iran as well for the period 2009 - 2014, years before any relief was granted.

Interesting.  Again, it's for the court to decide.  Your citation seems to be mostly about sanctions on oil exports to Iran.  Look, Iran has pulled a number of stunts over the decades.  It's an oppressive theocracy and a threat to western interests.  I don't dispute that.  Obama was trying to improve relations.  Now it's all "Out with Iran, in with the Saudis" with Trump in the house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Interesting.  Again, it's for the court to decide.  Your citation seems to be mostly about sanctions on oil exports to Iran.  Look, Iran has pulled a number of stunts over the decades.  It's an oppressive theocracy and a threat to western interests.  I don't dispute that.  Obama was trying to improve relations.  Now it's all "Out with Iran, in with the Saudis" with Trump in the house.

 

The narrower point here is that Ms. Weng was (allegedly) complicit in fraud to circumvent international sanctions against Iran during the period 2009 -2014, regardless of what today's stance may be (US, Canada, or EU).   Sanction mechanisms are far less effective if/when they are violated by nations/corporations seeking to bypass them for their own political/economic reasons.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The narrower point here is that Ms. Weng was (allegedly) complicit in fraud to circumvent international sanctions against Iran during the period 2009 -2014, regardless of what today's stance may be (US, Canada, or EU).   Sanction mechanisms are far less effective if/when they are violated by nations/corporations seeking to bypass them for their own political/economic reasons.

 

That's fair.  I don't think the punishments being bandied about necessarily fit the crime, 30 years times multiple counts?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That's fair.  I don't think the punishments being bandied about necessarily fit the crime, 30 years times multiple counts?  

 

If extradicted and convicted in the U.S., Ms. Weng would never serve that much hard time.   This perp only got 32 months:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/turkish-banker-mehmet-hakan-atilla-sentenced-32-months-conspiring-violate-us-sanctions

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Canada used to be the voice of reason/peacekeeper in the UN/NATO. Now with Harper it's becoming America's little puppy dog, and thanks to American reality television, pop news coverage and music consumed in Canada, American mindsets and values are beginning to spread into Canada. Many Canadians know and care more about American politics than about Canadian politics! Canada sent troops into Afghanistan and probably will send troops to Iran if America declares war on them. They've also closed the border to millions of Americans who have made minor criminal mistakes in the past, effectively banning them from Canada for life, and probably banning millions of Canadians from America for life as well.

Is Canada pretty much de-facto 'owned' by America now? Do they no longer have control of their destiny?

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1699855-canada-now-puppet-satellite-state-american.html#ixzz5ZcRGpaVV
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-trump-says-he-could-intervene-in-us-case-against-huawei-cfo-meng/


Trump says he could intervene in U.S. case against Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou
Jeff Mason, Steve Holland and Roberta Rampton
WASHINGTON
Reuters
Published 2 days ago
Updated 2 days ago

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would intervene with the U.S. Justice Department in the case against a Chinese telecommunications executive if it would help secure a trade deal with Beijing.

“If I think it’s good for the country, if I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made – which is a very important thing – what’s good for national security – I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary,” Trump said in a wide-ranging interview with Reuters in the Oval Office.

Trump expressed optimism that he could strike a trade deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping as the two countries struggle to resolve a dispute that has contributed to recent U.S. stock market declines and raised questions about whether economic turmoil could beset the president in the new year.

At the request of U.S. authorities, Huawei Technologies Co. executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested earlier this month in Vancouver on charges of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran.

1: US (and Canada) legal system is not independent from politics, it can be used to seize hostage for trade purpose, Somalia pirates love to seize hostage for money too.

2: <Quote>   In 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order barring U.S. investment in Iran’s energy sector. To evade U.S. law, Halliburton (CEO = Dick Cheney) set up an offshore subsidiary that engaged in dealings with Iran. So why wasn't Dick Cheney arrested?  </Quote>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/08/prosecuting-chinese-huawei-executive-is-an-idiotic-way-hold-china-check/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.828ffabded51

Prosecuting the Chinese Huawei executive is an idiotic way to hold China in check

More important, global supply chains are now deeply interconnected and touch multiple countries and numerous companies. Samsung, for instance, is the second largest cellphone provider in Iran, behind Huawei, while the Swedish telecom company Ericsson has been selling equipment to Iran even under the sanctions. Those companies may have done a better job not using American components for products sold to those countries, though with the complexity of global component sourcing, it is unlikely that no American intellectual property has been used by Iranian consumers. Yet U.S. prosecutors are not trying to curtail the work of those mega-technology giants, or aggressively investigating where every component originated.

Samsung and Ericsson, of course, are domiciled in countries that are American allies, whereas Huawei is tightly connected to what is now being seen by many as a prime American adversary. The initial reaction in China, judging by the social media flow and some interviews, is that the Americans are using their legal system to advance political interests in an ongoing contest with China.

There is a long and debated legacy on how far American laws extend. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has recognized a “presumption against extraterritoriality,” which holds that U.S. laws should not be enforced outside the United States. On the other, there are statutes such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which punishes bribery by foreign entities. Sanctions occupy a zone of their own, whereby the U.S. government has acted against other countries by threatening foreign companies that do business with them, if they also do business in the U.S. To the degree that the United States has enjoyed dominant economic power relative to any one country that might object, it has been able to use law enforcement as one tool among many to achieve policy objectives.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bjre said:

Arrest Ms. Meng clearly shows Canada legal system is a only a joke.

China is a shithole country. All its citizens in Canada should be arrested and deported.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-nsa-documents-show-how-the-us-spies-on-europe-and-the-un-a-918625.html

How America Spies on Europe and the UN

The Americans recently drew up a secret chart that maps out what aspects of which countries require intelligence. The 12-page overview, created in April, has a scale of priorities ranging from red "1" (highest degree of interest) to blue "5" (low interest). Countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are colored primarily red, meaning that additional information is required on virtually all fronts.

But the UN and the EU are also listed as espionage targets, with issues of economic stability as the primary concern. The focus, though, is also on trade policy and foreign policy (each rated "3") as well as energy security, food products and technological innovations (each rated "5").

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...